On This, The 100th Anniversary Of National Prohibition

It is a stunning decision if you consider what it means, in ruling against Gerard Comeau, the Supreme Court of Canada said that it remains illegal for a citizen of this country to buy a legal good in one part of the country and move it to another part of the country.

 

We aren’t talking about illegal substances, we are talking about the widely available product known as beer.

What a country.

*

36 Replies to “On This, The 100th Anniversary Of National Prohibition”

    1. Well of course you’re never supposed to cry over spilled milk; but the Supreme Court of Canada will give it a go!

      Now crying over BEER, well now that is whole new orders of magnitude… 🙂

      Prosit!

      Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
      1st Saint Nicolaas Army
      Army Group ‘True North’

  1. Proof that the Supremes are a dance act. When it suites their prejudices, they will rip up law books by the volume, when it doesn’t: “Oh, no governments have authority here”.

    1. the supreme court is a cadre of communists. they have never had the best interests of Canadians in mind only their own power.

    2. Franky my dear, if this is the law then the law is an ass.
      I will now be absolutely sure to take as much beer with me as I can when I cross borders. After all, they can also arrest me for filling up my tank and driving across a border.

      Think about the utter stupidity of this ruling, there is a legal precedent that says one must drain their tank at the border, push it across, and refill your fuel tank every time you cross. After all, the ruling on the amount of beer is entirely arbitrary and capricious, there was NO law dictating this nor any quantity. The supreme dancers pulled this out of their butt, somehow I guess consider the asses that they are it seems appropriate.

  2. This surprises me not at all. In ignoring the original legislation as well as subsequent and numerous interpretations to the contrary, the Supreme Court has merely reinforced its bias and corruption.

  3. The “Justices” actually said this:

    In its reasons, the Supreme Court said New Brunswick’s ability to exercise oversight over liquor supplies in the province “would be undermined if non-corporation liquor could flow freely across borders and out of the garages of bootleggers and home brewers.”

    Like people are driving from New Brunswick to buy some crappy beer made by a guy in his garage. They really do think we’re stupid don’t they?

    1. Odd that the Supreme Court didn’t mind it too much when certain Canadians (e. g., the Bronfmans) were helping with bootlegging hootch into the U. S. during Prohibition.

  4. Was the decision coloured by the battle over oil out west?
    The precedent is now set that a province can stop anything that it deems to be health and safety related.. which gives a lot of weight to BC’s reasons for stopping the Kinder Morgan expansion.
    Of course this is the Supreme Court that is consistently inconsistent. See the twisted logic that the gun registry was federal and Albert could not stop it, followed years later with the decision that Quebec could have a registry against the wishes of the federal government.

    1. The decision also allows Alberta to choke off the pipelines to La La land. So, if Horgan gets his way, Red Rachel can cut off the gas supply.

      Gord Lightfoot said it best, “ feel like I’m winnin’ when I’m losin again”

      Not the first time the ENDP (unions) will sacrifice the innocent for their own narrow agenda

  5. With any “luck”, something spectacularly good will occur whilst traveling that road.

    The plot of that original event was that the “enlightenment” took place on the ROAD to Damascus, not in the city.

    And it was no minor “attitude adjustment”, but a comprehensive 180 degree turn for Paul.

    You really do not want to be in Damascus, these days.

  6. We are witnessing the Balkanization of the country, it seems more evident as time passes that the Federal government is a toothless tiger. Our fearless leader Mr. Dressup and his Finance Minister Mr. Messup are nothing more than spectators as Canada acts like a ship without a rudder. Since commodities like beer and milk are apparently a Provincial responsibility then carbon must also be. Therefore the feds should have no jurisdiction in their attempt to impose a carbon tax as that would be decided by individual Provinces.

    1. You’re damn tooting, that would be the logical conclusion.

      However, nothing about this lala land is logical. Expect the libs to have a complete reverse understanding of this.

    1. the Trudeau constitution was of lawyers, by lawyers and for lawyers the people of Canada lost and continue to lose.

  7. I side with the Supreme Court. I live in Saskatchewan. When I had to drive to Alberta for beer, they got me to join AA.

    That was 35 years ago!!

    My favorite beer was Bohemian.

  8. And to think the Shiny Pony and the Ukrainian Nazi bimbo who passes as his foreign minister lecture President Trump on free trade.

  9. Sometimes civil disobedience is the only solution , each man, women and child should buy a single beer, haul it across the border and drink in front of courthouse in Fredericton.

  10. ” All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.”

    That is the text of section 121 of the constitution. It seems pretty straightforward to me. I guess you need years of legal experience to make it mean something different from what it very clearly says.

    1. it would seem that in this case the supreme court is in error. there is no compulsion to do as the court says when the court has violated the constitution.

    2. The Constitution of Canada is a religious document that Pierre Trudeau brought down from the Mount. It is only to be interpreted by the High Priests. Any interpretation by laymen is to be punished.

  11. Court? What the hell is that? Oh you mean the SJW clique ex-lawyers that are ubder the delusion that they run the country? Could the courts in Western coubtries really do anything more to encourage the people to flip them the bird and tell them to go eff themselves? Seriously. Tell the courts “go chuck a monkey, douchebag…” They can’t arrest us all…

  12. That time you realize the highest court in your country is functionally illiterate….

  13. If Scheer had any balls he would promise to invoke the Notwithstanding clause regarding this and tell the unelected assholes on the court that the Constitution is not theirs to fuck with. It is written in plain English and anyone who can read knows what it says. Putting on a robe and calling yourself a judge doesn’t stop you from understanding the English language.

  14. *sigh*

    I am SO SORRY, my Canadian neighbors. I thought only the SCOTUS (and assorted Federal Courts) were bent on burying the US Constitution by ceding Powers to the politicians and crushing the People. Essentially undoing and reversing the original intent of our Founders. This won’t stop until we are all crushed under the boot heel of these Marxists, and the people finally REVOLT!!

  15. This is why I’ve come to consider Canada a write-off. It simply cannot be reformed. The ruling elite will not permit it. This ruling would have been bad enough if it had been a split decision; that would have implied that some justices can read the plain language of s.121 and say that it plainly meant what it plainly said. But it was freakin’ UNANIMOUS. Every single judge bent themselves over for every government in the land that didn’t want their precious liquor / dairy / etc. monopolies to go away. The entrenched system will not permit itself to be changed. We are serfs, we are to do as we’re told by the elite, and if we don’t like it, too bad. We’re not permitted to change it.

    Preston Manning & Stephen Harper wasted their time with Reform & then the Conservative party. They should’ve just led Alberta out of this dysfunctional country and been done with it.

Navigation